Stormbringer's Thunder

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen It is not only very helpful to learn about informal logical fallacies, but can be fun. At least, they are for me. Prove it! Not only does this help you in discussions so you can see if some owlhoot is building an argument with faulty reasoning, but helps you check your own arguments so you can present present them as accurately as possible. Back up your assertions! The more I learn about fallacies, the more I see that not only can many of them get combined and overlap (a comment can a contain complex question, an ad hominem  and a genetic fallacy all at the same time, for example). Are you afraid to back up your claims, or just too stupid to cite something from a real source and not from creatard sites? More than that, I keep seeing additional "fallacies" that appear to be simply made up. Someone accused me of committing a fallacy because I pointed out his own fallacies, therefore, I was "negated" and he was free to continue buil

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Back when I was giving talks on creation science, I used what has become a very popular quote by an atheist: ‘Christianity has fought, still fights, and will continue to fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the Son of God. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing.  — G. Richard Bozarth, ‘The Meaning of Evolution’, American Atheist, p. 30. 20 September 1979. The way I study on it, this quote would have been mostly forgotten if biblical creationists hadn't lassoed it and kept repeating it. "Why do you people keep repeating it, Cowboy Bob?" Thanks for asking. We repeat it because it's right. Vituperative and biased, but right. This was bac

A simple, fair, obvious question: If atheists and anti-creation evolutionists are confident in their reasoning abilities, why do they resort to unconscionable and illegal methods to silence Christians and creationists? I reckon that the days are long gone where people could discuss matters rationally. Now, we have to deal with attacks. This fits in with the rising tide of wickedness in the world, but atheopaths are behind a lot of it. Especially on the interwebs. Those of us with knowledge and experience can dismantle their "reasoning" and expose their logical fallacies, especially since most are based on assertions, intimidation, ridicule and outright personal attacks. Many atheists are materialists who are bowing to their religion of Scientism . Since many can't saddle up the horse of reason and learn to ride, they prefer to go in with six-guns blazing in different ways — primarily based on provoking emotional reactions. Some resort to criminal acts like imperso

One of the most annoying and tiresome attacks on Christianity is when atheists will say, "You st00pid dumb Xtians are just copying ancient pagan religions!", and then they throw some outright falsehoods that they gleaned off the interwebs. Fact check, please! But no, that requires intellectual honesty. Wikimedia Commons / Ad Meskens What if a pagan god showed up at your Christmas service and said that you're really celebrating his birth, and that Jesus is just a copy of pagan myths? Here are two videos. The first is a cartoon that dispenses with the myths. The second is from Ian Juby's "Genesis Week", where he deals with the Horus manure.     Start at the 18 minutes 9 seconds mark to get right to the Horus stuff:

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen One of the main problems that atheists have is prejudicial conjecture. That is, they get all het up, thinking they know about something and spouting off their uninformed opinions while also trying to influence the views of others. When it comes to the Bible, many atheists not only resort to prejudicial conjecture, but many other logical fallacies including the straw man. Sorry, Cupcake, but we don't have to defend something we don't hold to or didn't say. This includes quote-mined material from the Bible.  Made at Atom Smasher Numerous fallacies can be rounded up in regards to creation science. They will misrepresent creationists, call us liars (their "proof" is essentially based on "because I said so repeatedly", but actually makes them the liars because of no real evidence), appeal to motive, poisoning the well, unfounded accusations, loaded terminology and a whole lot more. With just a little learning about informal

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Edited 10-14-2014. The inspiration for this article is backwards. I saw a rant in an inconsequential forum by a vituperative but unimportant atheist. Then  I read the article on one of the sites I subscribe to that brought his childish "you deny evolution and billions of years, so you're a liar" reaction. The article in question is by former theistic evolutionist Dr. David Catchpoole of CMI, " Faith can move mountains (but it can't change history) ". He wrote a short article about the global Genesis Flood from his biblical creationist (young earth) perspective, and was given an ad hominem  attack for his efforts by the aforementioned atheopath. Dr. Catchpoole gave links in that article to some of the science articles supporting the Genesis Flood, but the critic did not seem to be interested in reading or responding to those.  The uneducated atheopath railed against Catchpoole, displaying his inability to distinguish between a

The fallacy of " Special Pleading " is a form of "Moving the Goalposts" by ignoring important information, changing criteria to bolster one's position, appealing to emotions, and similar tactics. Christians and creationists have to deal with this quite a bit. F'rinstance, when I said that Bill Nye used bad science and logical fallacies when debating Ken Ham, I produced abundant supporting evidence. A critic cried, "...I have NOT studied it in detail. However, I note that it FAILS to quote anything Nye actually said at the debate with Ken Ham VERBATIM..." That's a clear example of moving the goalposts and special pleading (as well as the brilliant logical procedure of arguing from something not studied). Owlhoots like this tend to defend their logical fallacies with more fallacies, such as appeal to motive . So, how about Pluto, the ninth planet of the solar system. Oh, wait. It was disqualified, and with apparently good reasons . People d